Note: The GMs want this to be an active, involved Court. Without community involvement we will not have community resolvement. Anyone can post here at will as long as it has to do with rules or disputes.
Definition of a GM
As hawk began in his own definition, the Game Masters (GMs) are CNRP players appointed by the Cyber Nations Forums moderating staff to apply the CNRP community rules. They represent the moderation staff within CNRP. GM's do not create rules, as they are not a triumvirate (or a duumvirate, or an autocrat). However, the rules can be ambiguous, as in reality they are not a centralized set of policies, but a loose network of customs, procedures, written and unwritten guidelines, and to some degree precedents. Many disputes within CNRP, as it is a competitive atmosphere, arise from this ambiguity. Therefore to apply the rules, the duty of interpretations is also left to the GM. Hawk himself described this by referring to the GM as a judge or an arbiter. This is a functional and a reasonable definition, so I continue to maintain it. It is from this definition, that scope and the role of the GM can be derived.
The Shammy Socialist
Tidy Bowl Man
If a dispute occurs, be it a disagreement in the rules, disagreement in interpretation, claims of abuse, or any other incident whereby one party feels wronged by another the first step which should be attempted is a private negotiation between the two sides. This can be carried out however one sees fit (formal, informal, pm, query, thread post ect). The point of this is to get the two adversaries talking and to see if some sort of common ground can be reached without the need out outside intervention. Often this can be mutually beneficial as it does not always have to strictly conform to the rules of CNRP and the complexities and rigidity of the structure of rules often cannot make room for the circumstantial details of each case.
If negotiation fails, then please post in this thread (the GM court) linking specifically to the relevant posts which the dispute concerns. Provide a short description of the dispute. At this point the evaluating GM can examine the situation and if the verdict seems apparent, they can make a ruling prior to any case. (Example 1: someone deploy's a giant space laser to attack ground targets. Clearly this is outlawed and there is firm precedent to establish it, no drawn out case is necessary. Example 2: Someone overtly godmodes, it is fairly established what godmoding is no drawn out process is required. Example 3: Someone Rp's in your territory without your permission, again obvious and clearly illegal.) If however, the verdict is not apparent, a new thread will be opened by a GM to address the dispute, you, the initiator will be given the opportunity to provide the absolute best possible argument for why you think you are correct. It is your responsibility to provide us with the facts, evidence, logical appeals, and other appeals that supports your side. After this post the other person should compile the best case they possibly can supporting their side. They should also address errors in their opponents and in general refute the other side thoroughly. The person who initiated GM resolution will then be given a chance to respond to the refutation of their case and to refute the case of the second party. At this point third parties to the dispute who would like to make input are welcome to jump in and the original parties can continue to defend and attack eachother's positions. The GM who opened the topic will review this thread and render a decision (based on the arguments made and the evidence provided) in the GM court providing reasoning for the decision. This decision will be generally final, except within extreme cases where the decision itself is so beyond any level of justification that no rational individual could have condoned it. In such cases the other non-participating GM's may initiate a community poll to overturn the ruling.
Should the initiator or second party refuse to participate in the dispute resolution process, a decision will still be made on the basis of the participating party's posts, as well as any third party input. In such a case the non-participating party has foregone their opportunity to present their case to us. If they do not like the decision that comes back, we cannot be blamed or faulted for whatever impact the lack of their input has. Our decision will not necessarily be a default judgement favoring the participating side, but we will in all likelihood lack the full details of the non-participants side, (as only they fully know the details of what they posted).
If the GM`s see a violation of the rules that nobody comes forward about, then it is still up to the GM`s to fix said violation. Some of us in the community favor proactive GM`s and others favor laid-back ones, and for all intents and purposes you get the best of both worlds with the current, sitting GM`s.
Types of Outcome:
Affirmation: Agreement with initiator.
Negation: Agreement with the second party.
Double Negation: Disagreement with both parties.
Wiping of actions deemed illegal thus resolving the dispute.
Upholding of the disputed actions leaving the status quo as it is.
Designating an award which resolves the dispute.
Most of the disputes involving GM's require the employment of their interpretive powers. To make this process (at least for myself) more transparent these are the three core questions I ask myself and I attempt to determine when weighing a decision.
1) Is the meaning apparent in the formulation of the rule? In other words is its meaning obvious.
2) Is there a precedent for this case? Beyond that is this precedent fair and reasonable? I find tradition to personally be a deplorable justification for doing anything. As humans our history has been one of various parties mastering and dominating one another, though the way in which we go about this has become increasingly more abstract and complicated our history is littered with death, slavery, and 'injustice'. So before I pass the buck to my predecessors I do always check to see if the precedent in question is equitable. It is also worth noting that the GM who made the decision may have been narrowly focused and that they did not or could not predict the ultimately uses and results of their original ruling. Context is important so I consider that as well.
3)If no such meaning is obvious, and if no reasonable precedent is available, I simply assess what the best interpretation would be.
Compilation of GM/Moderator Rulings
1. Custom aircraft: 1) All custom aircraft used in combat must have stats accompanying them which are reviewable and accessible before they are used in combat. These stats must be reasonably comprehensive.
2) All custom aircraft which are employing yet to be serviced technology must be defendable by some semi-mature science and links which can show there is a reasonable chance to see it in production service by your tech year capped of course at 2031.
3) While all aspect ultra stealth aircraft and hypersonic aircraft are feasible by advanced nations, it is not feasible to have aircraft that do both of these "near perfect"
4) No uber cloak (all aspect detection proof) can be employed by a player, active camouflage is hereby banned.
5) No materials which allow for ultra light, ultra strong, with huge payloads (ones which exceed current weapon capacity of equal size by multiples, for example the T-50 currently has the largest internal weapons bay of fifth generation aircraft, a tactical aircraft of this size could not weigh half as much and carry 20 internal weapons as opposed to the T-50s ten). Additionally these materials may not be used as justification to make range levels which seem unreasonably high with compared to current top tier aircraft of similar size and role.
2. Nuclear attacks on nations under 20k NS in-game: Any nation under 20k NS in-game can not be attacked with nuclear weapons unless they are 1. developing or own chemical, biological, area-effect EMP weapons, 2. own nukes and/or a Manhattan Project in-game, 3. ask a larger player to nuke someone.
3. In cases where GMs are in conflict with each other, or are otherwise compromised, GMs may now elect amongst themselves with a unanimous vote a temporary neutral fourth GM who's sole responsibility will be arbitrating that particular dispute.
5. GMs involved in a war will not be allowed to roll during that war unless specifically requested by the opposing side to said GM.
As a general summation:
-No Ruling will be given on an unclear issue without all sides being publicly heard from.
-It is the responsibility of interested parties to provide the evidence and arguments necessary to understanding a case. We cannot be expected to do the investigative leg work over an issue that those who are actually involved in understand the best. The most efficient way to obtain the facts is for those who know them to come forward.
-The GM`s will not take any abuse. There will be disagreements, and if you find that you disagree with us then politely point out what you believe to be flaws. Any unwarranted abuse will not be looked kindly upon.
-Many GM discussions are done on irc, upon request full logs on a specific subject will be provided.
Edited by Centurius, 05 May 2013 - 11:41 AM.